Bombay High Court
Nitin Pandit Sapkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2008
Author: V.M. Kanade
Bench: V.M. Kanade
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1217 OF 2003
Nitin Pandit Sapkar )
Aged 19 years, Occ.Fitter, )
Residing at Hingne Home Colony, )
Karve Nagar, Pune )
(At present in Yerawada Central )
Prison, Pune) ) ...Appellant
(Orig.Accused)
vs.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr.R.S. Mohite for the Appellant.
Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State.
Ms.Rebecca Gonsalves with Mr.Vijay Hiremath for
Intervenor.
CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.
ig DATED : OCTOBER 22, 2008
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel for the complainant.
2. The appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Court, Pune, in Sessions Case No.487/2002. By the said judgment and order dated 30th August, 2003, the trial court was pleased to convict the accused-the appellant ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:31 :::
- 2 -
herein for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 354 and 506 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for 10 years and one year, respectively.
3. Prosecution case in brief is that the prosecutrix who was a young girl of 8 years of age was residing with her parents in Karve Nagar, Pune. Her mother complainant Anita Sutar was a housewife doing the domestic work and she was living with her husband and two daughters. The prosecutrix was the youngest daughter.
The complainant Anita had two other daughters who were elder to the prosecutrix. Accused Nitin Sapkar who was 19 years old on the date of incident was living in front of their house alongwith his parents.
4. The prosecution case is that on 14th September, 2002, the prosecutrix had gone out of the house to play with her friend Leena and at that time, accused Nitin called the prosecutrix inside his house and told her he would give her Marbles and when she went inside the house, he removed her knicker and licked her private part. While he was removing her petticoat, her friend ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:31 :::
- 3 -
called her and at that time, the accused released the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix returned home and informed her mother about the incident. Her mother immediately questioned the accused about the incident. According to the complainant, he confessed about the incident and ran away. The complainant informed her brother-in-law Rajaram and her neighbour Padmini Kankare, Ashok Joshi and Sham and she alongwith the prosecutrix went to the Alankar Police Chowky and lodged a complaint at Exhibit-16 against the accused. Accordingly, an offence was registered against the accused being CR No.328/2002 under Sections 354, 509 of the IPC. Accused was arrested on 15th September, 2002 and he was sent for medical examination. Medical report was submitted at Exhibit 32.
5. Thereafter, a supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 16th September, 2002. In the supplementary statement, complainant Anita informed the police that about 8 days before the first complaint, the accused had called the prosecutrix and had committed rape on her and this fact was told by the prosecutrix to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 4 -
the complainant on 16th September. The prosecutrix was thereafter sent to Sassoon Hospital for medical examination. Clothes were also produced by the father of the prosecutrix on 16th September, 2002. Spot panchanama was prepared thereafter and seized muddemal was sent for Chemical Analyser's report and after the investigation was over, offence of Section 376 was added to the initial complaint which was filed on 14th September, 2002 for the offence under Sections 354, 506 of the IPC. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. Prosecution examined six witnesses, viz. PW 1 Anita Sutar - complainant and mother of the prosecutrix, PW 2 Ankita Sutar -
prosecutrix, PW 3 Dr.Bhushan B. Rao - Medical Officer, PW 4 Pandurang B. Dangar who was the panch witness, PW 5 Ramchandra S. Kadam - Investigating Officer who carried out the investigation and PW 6 Popatrao N. Bhagat who was Police Hawaldar. The trial court on the basis of this evidence held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the offence of rape and taking into consideration the provisions of Section 376(2)(f) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 5 -
imposed the minimum sentence of 10 years for the said offence and also convicted him for the offence under Section 506 for a period of one year.
6. Shri Mohite, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted the conduct of the prosecutrix and her mother was unnatural and therefore, the prosecution version should not be relied upon. It was submitted that because of the unnatural conduct on the part of the prosecutrix who had narrated the incident to her mother on 14th September, 2002 of molestation and after a lapse of 2 days, she had informed her mother about the incident which had taken place on 6th September, 2002 which was a more serious offence of rape. He also submitted that when the second complaint was filed, three social workers had accompanied the complainant which indicated that the improvement had been made in the earlier complaint dated 14th September, 2002 at the behest of some other person.
He invited my attention to deposition of PW 1 Anita and also deposition of PW 2 Ankita - prosecutrix and invited my attention to the improvements which are made by these ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 6 -
witnesses. He submitted that it was unlikely that the prosecutrix would not reveal the earlier incident which was far more serious than the subsequent which was allegedly took place on 14th September, 2002. He invited my attention to the Medical Certificate in which the Doctor had given a certificate and had noted that the general behaviour of the prosecutrix was normal.
There was no bleeding. There was no injury to the fourchette, perneum, cervix. He, however, had stated in his certificate that hymen shown circular tear and that the vagina was inflamed and minor contusion was present on labia minora. He submitted that the age of the tear of the vagina, however, was not mentioned. It was also not mentioned what was the age of the vaginal inflammation. He also submitted that on the medical examination of the accused, there was no injuries found on his person or on his private parts. He further submitted that the complainant had admitted in the cross-examination that she had taken a loan of Rs.3000/-
from the mother of the accused. He further invited my attention to the cross-examination of the complainant and pointed out that the complainant had admitted that 4 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 7 -
to 5 days prior to 14.9.2002, Ankita was ill and was having a temperature. He also pointed out that the complainant had admitted that prosecutrix Ankita was ill having abdominal pain and urination trouble. He submitted that therefore, the contusion on the labia minora was possible due to irritation. He, therefore, submitted that the prosecutrix had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the said offence. He has further invited my attention to the opinion given by Cox in his book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. He submitted that the author has given an opinion that if the insertion of penis goes beyond the vulva, the tearing and damage of the tissues are so extreme and in such cases there is real danger to life. He submitted that in the present case, however, there was no bleeding, no injury and the inflammation in the vagina and the contusion could be attributed to the urinary infection which was admitted by the complainant.
7. The learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that there was no reason for child of 8 years of age to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 8 -
depose falsely about the incident of rape and the subsequent incident of molestation. He submitted that in such cases, delay in filing the FIR is not mandatory since the parents of the child are reluctant to report such an incident to the police. He submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix was clearly supported by the medical evidence which clearly showed that there was penetration and there was clear tear of hymen. He submitted that the improvements or contradictions in the statement of the complainant and the prosecutrix, if any, were very minor and it did not shake the testimony of the prosecutrix.
8. In my view, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Though it is no doubt true that the sequence of events as narrated by the complainant is rather absolutely strange, the fact remains that one has to take into consideration the tender age of the prosecutrix who was merely 8 years of age when the said incident had taken place. The mental frame-up of the child differs from person to person and it is quite possible that the prosecutrix was afraid of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 9 -
disclosing the first incident to the mother on account of threat given by the accused and only after the incident had happened for the second time, she came and reported this fact to her mother. It is true that on the second occasion when the complaint was filed, three social workers had accompanied the complainant. Though this fact was initially denied by the complainant in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer and the complainant herself, it has been brought on record that when the second additional statement was recorded, three social workers viz.
igone Mangalatai and 2 others of
Mahila Mandal were present when the complaint was
recorded. It is true that the Investigating Officer has
denied the suggestion of the supplementary statement was recorded under pressure of Mangalatai. However, it has to be noted from the mere presence of social workers, inference cannot be drawn that on account of the pressure exerted by such persons, the Investigating Officer added serious offence under Section 376(2)(f).
In the present case, the medical evidence clearly supports the prosecution case. It is not in dispute that the age of the girl was 8 years. Ossification test ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 10 -
which is conducted by the Medical Authority clearly indicates that the age of the girl was 8 years. Though no bleeding was found by the doctor on examining her, there is a clear observation that there was circular tear in the hymen alongwith inflammation of vagina and minor contusion on the labia minora. The Doctor also has given an opinion that there was penetration in the vagina. He also stated that because of vaginal penetration, the vagina was inflamed and there was minor contusion in the inner side of vaginal labia minora.
Though much
stress was given by the appellant on the
admission given by the appellant in cross-examination
that contusion was possible as a result of itching with
the finger, the suggestion that there was no vaginal
penetration was denied by the doctor. So even if the
minor contusion of the labia minora is not accepted,
there is a clear indication of penetration of the vagina on the account of tear in the hymen. It is now settled position is in law that the penis if it is slightly penetrated, action of rape is complete. In a catena of cases, it has been held that once penetration is proved, it is possible that there would no injuries on account ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 11 -
of several factors and absence of injury cannot be a ground for discarding the testimony of the prosecution.
Taking into consideration, therefore, the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant, in my view, the trial court was justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 506 of the IPC.
9. On the question of sentence, Shri Mohite, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that this Court may award sentence below the minimum sentence which is permissible under Section 376.
He first of all submitted that the accused was admittedly 19 years of age and that he had undergone more than 6 years of sentence. He submitted that there were no injuries on the person of the prosecutrix and that there was no bleeding. He also submitted that the prosecutrix had living a normal life even after the first incident of rape on 6th September, 2002. He submitted that it is indicated that the accused had not acted in an unduly harsh or cruel manner. He submitted that though the minimum sentence which was prescribed ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 12 -
for offence under Section 376(2)(f) was 10 years, the legislature in its wisdom has given discretion to the court to award the sentence less than 10 years by giving adequate and special reasons. He submitted that however, there was no judgment which indicated what would be the adequate or special reason that would be awarded. He submitted that the said reasons, therefore, would depend upon the facts of each case. In support of the said submission, he relied on three judgments.
Firstly, he relied on the judgment in the case of State of Chattisgarh vs. Derha, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 699.
699He submitted that in the said case, the age of the accused was 18 years and the age of the prosecutrix was 8 years. He invited my attention to para 8 of the said judgment wherein taking into consideration the sentence of six and half years undergone by the accused and on account of his age, the sentence was reduced to 10 years. He also invited my attention to the judgment in the case of Phul Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 413.
413 He also invited my attention to the observations made by the Apex Court in respect of the sentencing policy which had to be taken into ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 13 -
consideration by the court in such cases. He invited my attention to para 7 of the said judgment wherein the Apex Court had noted that the accused was 22 years of age with no criminal antecedents except the offence for which he was convicted and had awarded 4 years of sentence. He also relied on the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Shri Avtar Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in Crimes Vol.III-1984(1) Page 636. In this case also, the sentence was reduced from 10 years to 7 years RI.
10. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that it was the duty of the court to impose on the person found guilty the punishment prescribed by law. He submitted that the Apex Court in a catena of cases had held that in case of sexual crime against women and more particularly in cases of offence of such a nature, a person committing the offence should be awarded heavy punishment. In support of the said submission, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Babulal, reported in (2008) 1 SCC Page 234.
234 He ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 14 -
also relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka 2000, Appellant v.
Krishnappa, Respondent, reported in 2000 Criminal Law Journal 1793 and in the case of State of M.P. v/s.
Santosh Kumar, reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2370 (S.C.).
11. The learned Counsel for the Intervenor invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs Madan Singh. He also invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh, Appellant vs. Polamala Raju alias Rajarao, Respondent, reported in 2000 Criminal Law Journal 4014 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh @ Lalya Anand Jagtap vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 209. He further invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam, Petitioner v. Subra Chakraborty, Respondent, reported in AIR 1996 SC 922 and the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan, Appellant vs. Om Prakash, Respondent, reported in 2002 Cri.Law Journal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 15 -
2951.
12. Before I consider the rival submission on the question of sentence which is to be awarded to the appellant, it would be fruitful to have a look at the observations of this Court and the Apex Court on this aspect of the case. In a recent judgment, the Apex Court in the State of M.P. vs. Babulal (supra) has taken into consideration the question relating to adequacy of sentence. In para 23 of the order, it is observed by the Apex Court that once a person is tried for commission of an offence and found guilty by a competent court, it is the duty of the court to impose on him such sentence as is prescribed by law. It is further observed that the award of sentence is also consequential one and incidental to conviction. In para 24, the Apex court has quoted the Halsbury's Law of England (4th Edn., Vol.11, Para 482) thus :
"482. Object of punishment.- The aims of punishment are now considered to be retribution, justice, deterrence, reformation and protection ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 16 -
and modern sentencing policy reflects a combination of several or all of these aims.
The retributive element is intended to show public revulsion to the offence and to punish the offender for his wrong conduct. The concept of justice as an aim of punishment means both that the punishment should fit the offence and also that like offences should receive similar punishments. An increasingly important aspect of punishment is deterrence and sentences are aimed at deterring not only the actual offender from further offences but also potential offenders from breaking the law. The importance of reformation of the offender is shown by the growing emphasis laid upon it by much modern legislation, but judicial opinion towards this particular aim is varied and rehabilitation will not usually be accorded precedence over deterrence. The main aim of punishment in judicial thought, however, is still the protection of society and the other objects frequently receive only secondary consideration ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 17 -
when sentences are being decided."
(emphasis supplied) . In para 25, it is observed as under :-
"In justice-delivery system, sentencing is indeed a difficult and complex question. Every court must be conscious and mindful of proportion between an offence committed and penalty imposed as also its impact on society in general and the victim of the crime in particular."
13. In para 27 of the judgment, the Apex Court has noted the doctrine of proportionality in prescribing sentences according to culpability of criminal conduct.
The Apex court has taken into consideration the facts which have to be taken into consideration while awarding sentence. In para 27, it is observed as under :
" xxxxxxxxxxxx. Sentencing is thus a delicate ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 18 -
task which requires skill, talent and consideration of several factors, such as, the nature of offence, circumstances-extenuating or aggravating-in which it was committed, prior criminal record of the offender, if any, age and background of the criminal with reference to education, home life, social adjustment, emotional and mental condition, prospects of his reformation and rehabilitation, etc. All these and similar other considerations can, hopefully and legimately, tilt the scale on the propriety of sentence."
14. The Apex Court thereafter in para 33 has noted that the court can impose less than the minimum sentence of seven years' to record "adequate and special reasons". In para 33, it is observed as under :-
"33. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 376 IPC thus enjoins the court if it imposes less than the minimum sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment on an offender of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 19 -
rape to record "adequate and special reasons" in the judgment. Recording of reasons is, therefore, sine qua non or condition precedent for imposing sentence less than the minimum required by law. Moreover, such reasons must be both (i) "adequate", and (ii) "special". What is "adequate" and "special" would depend upon several factors and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as a rule of law of universal application."
15. The Apex Court, therefore, has accepted the contention that the Court does have the discretion to award the sentence which is less than the minimum sentence provided adequate and special reasons are recorded. In the said case, the Apex Court observed that the reasons given by the High Court for awarding lesser sentence were not special and also were not adequate reasons. The Apex court observed that there are two reasons given by the High Court (1) the respondent was an illiterate agriculturist from rural area", and (2) an amount of fine of Rs.2500/- was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 20 -
imposed on him. Apart from the said two reasons, no other reason had been mentioned in the judgment. The Apex Court observed that the said reason, therefore, was neither special nor adequate. The order of the High Court was set aside and the judgment and order passed by the trial court was confirmed.
16. It would be fruitful also to consider the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Phul Singh (supra).
(supra) In the said case, the appellant was convicted for the offence of 376 and sentenced to suffer RI for 4 years. The Apex Court reduced the sentence from 4 years to 2 years. While doing so, in the said judgment, Justice Krishna Iyer has taken into consideration the sentencing policy which may be kept in mind by the court. It has been observed in paragraphs 3,4 and 5 as under :-
"3. We must, however, direct our attention in a different penological direction. For sentencing efficacy in cases of lust-loaded criminality cannot be simplistically assumed by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 21 -
award of long incarceration, for, often that remedy aggravates the malady. Punitive therapeutics must be more enlightened than the blind strategy of prison severity where all that happens is sex-starvation, brutalisation, criminal companionship, versatile vices through bio-environmental pollution, dehumanised cell drill under 'zoological conditions' and emergence, at the time of release, of an embittered enemy of society and its values with an indelible stigma as convict stamped on him -
a potentially good person 'successfully' processed into a hardened delinquent, thanks to the penal illiteracy of the Prison System. The Court must restore the man.
4. A hypersexed homo sapien cannot be habilitated by humiliating or harsh treatment, but that is precisely the perversion of unreformed Jail Justice which some criminologists have described as the crime of punishment. This Court has held, in Sunit Batra ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 22 -
case (1979) 1SCR 392 : (1978) 4 SCC 494 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 155 and later that, constitutionally viewed, punitive deprivation of personal freedom must be goal-oriented and humanely restorative, apart from being deterrent. The insulated years behind the insensitive bars must possess a hospital setting if correction is a social purpose, as Gandhiji often insisted. In-prison treatment must, therefore, be geared to psychic healing, release of stresses, restoration of self-respect and cultural normalisation, apart from training to adapt oneself to the life outside. The functional failure of our pachydermic prison projects, exacerbated by its tension and trauma on the one hand and the reverse ethos inside on the other, deserves judicial cognisance. The current efforts of governments, Central and State, to reform jail regimen, we hope, will give a better deal to the caged community. For these reasons, in this case, we deem it desirable to superadd to the sentence of imprisonment a few directives to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 23 -
ensure that the carceral period reforms the convict.
5. The appellant is not a 'habitual' and has no vicious antecedents except this fugitive, randy molestation which is bad enough in a society where women are often socially weak and sexually victimised. It may be marginally extenuatory to mention that modern Indian conditions are drifting into societal permissiveness ig on the carnal front promoting proneness to pornos in life, what with libidinous 'brahmacharis', womanising public men, lascivious dating and mating by unwed students, sex explosion in celluloid and bookstalls and corrupt morals reaching a new 'high' in high places. The unconvicted deviants in society are demoralisingly large and the State has, as yet, no convincing national policy on female flesh and sex sanity. We hope, at this belated hour, the Central Government will defend Indian womanhood by stamping out ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 24 -
voluptuous meat markets by merciless criminal action. Isolated prosecutions and annual suppression rhetoric will stultify the law where the vice is widespread and the larger felons are often let loose."
17. In para 7, it is stated that the appellant was barely 22 with no criminal antecedents and that he had a wife and a farm to look after and the possibility of meditational therapy and other measures such as correctional courses ig would bring an end to his aberration. In the case of State of Chattisgarh (supra) the sentence is reduced from 10 years to 7 years by the Apex Court the accused was also 18 years of age and the prosecutrix was 8 years of age. The Apex Court has observed in para 8 as under :-
"8. The question then arises, what should be the sentence that should be imposed on the accused? The trial court, as stated above, has sentenced the respondent for an offence under section 376(2)(f) to 10 years' RI. We are told ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 25 -
by learned counsel for the respondent that he was hardly 18 years of age at the time of the incident in question and has already served about 6-1/2 years' imprisonment consequent to the sentence imposed on him by the trial court.
It is also submitted that he has since married and has a family. In such circumstances, we think a sentence of 7 years' RI would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence while allowing the appeal of the State, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and restoring the conviction recorded by the trial court, we reduce the sentence to 7 years' RI. We further direct that if the respondent has undergone any part of the sentence as submitted by learned counsel, set-off shall be given for the said part of the sentence and he will also be entitled to any legal remission permissible in law for having served 6-1/2 years' imprisonment."
18. In the case of Shri Avtar Singh (supra), the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 26 -
High Court of Himachal Pradesh also reduced the sentence from 10 years to 7 years. The High Court has made the following observations in para 12 :-
"12. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sentence imposed by the Sessions Judges is too excessive and that keeping in view the young age of the appellant he should be dealt with leniently.
The facts of this case as discussed above show
that the
appellant behaved in a shockingly
indecent and brutal manner. The magnitude of
his offence cannot be over emphasized in the
context of the fact that he made an innocent and helpless child of about 5 years the victim of his sexual lust ignoring her cries and pain.
This is a crime which certainly calls for a very serious view in the matter of award of sentence.
At the same time the young age of the appellant who in any case is below 21 years must also be taken into consideration. But for this factor I would not have countenanced the prayer for ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 27 -
leniency in the matter of sentence as addressed on behalf of the appellant. Taking into consideration the age of the appellant I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served if the substantive sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge on the appellant is reduced from one of 10 years R.I. to one of R.I. for 7 years. Subject to this modification in the matter of sentence, this appeal fails and is dismissed."
19. From the judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the State, it can be seen that in the case of State of Karnataka, Appellant vs. Krishnappa (Supra), where the sentence was enhanced from 4 years to 10 years by the Apex Court, the prosecutrix in the said case was 8 years of age. The accused was 49 years of age and the High Court while giving a lesser sentence had observed that the accused was unsophisticated and illiterate citizen belonging to a weaker section of the society and had committed the offence while in the state of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 28 -
intoxication. Under the facts of the said case, the Apex Court had observed that the approach of the High Court was most casual and improper and there were no good reasons given by the High Court to reduce the sentence. In the case of State of M.P. vs. Santosh Kumar (supra), (supra) the High Court had reduced the sentence from 10 years to 5 years in view of the age of the accused and he being the member of the Scheduled Tribe.
The Apex Court observed that it could not be said that being the member of the Scheduled Tribe could not be considered either adequate or special reasons. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Madan Singh (supra), the High Court had reduced the sentence to the term of 7 years without giving adequate or special reasons. The Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the punishment of 10 years. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Polamala Raju alias Rajarao (supra), (supra) the Apex Court noted that the adequate and special reasons should be disclosed in the order/judgment itself and that all relevant facts and circumstances on the question of sentence should be taken into consideration. In the case of Ramesh @ Lalya ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 29 -
Anand Jagtap vs. State of Maharashtra (supra),
(supra) the
conviction and sentence of 10 years imposed by the trial court was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and it was observed that discretion vested in the court vide the proviso should be exercised. In the said case, the accused had committed rape on an infant girl of two and half years of age and it was noticed that there were following injuries on her person :-
"There was no external injury on other parts of her body.
Small tear on the posterior fourchette there was bleeding in the vagina. She was excessively crying due to injury,.
This injury is possible by hard object like finger."
She was kept in the hospital for three days. From the conspectus of the cases discussed hereinabove, the bottom line is that the Court has to give adequate and special reasons for the purpose of awarding a lesser sentence than the sentence is prescribed under the legislature. Secondly, the ratio of the Apex Court judgment is that the rule of the legislature must ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 30 -
prevail when a minimum sentence is prescribed by the legislature and if a deviation is to be made from the minimum sentence, compelling reasons have to be given.
However, in any of these judgments, it can be seen that what are compelling reasons or adequate or special reasons are not mentioned.
21. In the case of State of M.P. vs. Babulal (supra), the Apex Court has stated some of the factors which are to be taken into consideration. In para 27 of its order, such factors are the nature of offence, circumstances (extenuating or aggravating) in which it was committed, prior criminal record of the offender, if any, age and background of the criminal with reference to education, home life, social adjustment, emotional and mental condition, prospects of his reformation and rehabilitation, etc. In the case of Phul Singh (supra), (supra) it has been also emphasised that very often courts in India do not give much emphasis to the reformation of the criminal and more emphasis is given on deterring effect of the sentence.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::- 31 -
22. In my view, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence is liable to be reduced from 10 years to 8 years for the following reasons :-
23. While considering the question of sentence what has to be seen is the nature of the offence, the manner in which it is committed. In the present case, the offence was committed on 6th September, 2002. First complaint of molestation was reported on 14th September, 2002. The story of rape was disclosed by the prosecutrix to the mother on 16th for the first time almost after 10 days from the date of the first incident. The nature of injuries disclose that there was no bleeding and there was no injury to the fourchette, perneum, cervix. Clearly, if there is a use of excessive force, injury can be caused to the internal wall of the rectum and Cox in his book on Medical Jurisprudence has given an opinion that if the insertion of penis goes beyond the vulva, the tearing and damage of the tissues are so extreme that frequently a real danger to the life exists and a proportion of these case ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 32 -
have a fatal outcome. Therefore, degree of damage which is done physically and mentally also has to be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence which is below the minimum sentence of 10 years. In my view, taking into consideration the fact that there was no bleeding, injury and that vaginal inflammation could be caused due to urinary infection which admittedly existed at the relevant time which could also cause irritation and contusion to the labia minora is another factor which according to me would be adequate and a special circumstance which will have to be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence. The third factor is that though initially complaint lodged on 14th September, 2002 was of molestation, by a supplementary statement which was recorded by the police at the police station in the presence of three social workers belonging to Mahila Mandal, the offence of molestation under Section 354 was later on converted into Section
376. When the prosecutrix was first examined on 16th September, the Doctor has given an opinion that the condition of the girl was normal. This additional circumstance does create a lingering doubt in the mind ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 33 -
of the court whether the charge of 376 was subsequently added at the behest of the social workers who had accompanied the complainant though I have already given a finding that in view of the medical report given by the doctor, the charge of 376 has been established.
Fourthly, the complainant has admitted that she had taken a loan of Rs.3000/- from the mother of the accused. The suggestion has been made by the Counsel for the accused that there was altercation between the complainant and the mother of the accused on this issue.
Fifthly, the
accused was 18-19 years of age and was a
student and there were no other criminal antecedents.
The accused was a student studying in the 11th standard
did not belong to a family having criminal antecedents.
Sixthly, the appellant already has undergone more than 6 years of sentence. He was arrested on 15th September, 2002 and he is in jail since then. Seventhly, he is not grown up or mature person who is habituated to sexual intercourse and would know the consequences of sexual intercourse with a minor girl of 8 years of age.
24. Last but not the least, the nature of the crime ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::
- 34 -
is not such as that it would indicate that it was done with utmost cruelty and perversity. Lastly, the accused has already undergone 6 years of imprisonment and further, the imprisonment for a period of 10 years may, in fact, have an adverse effect on the reformation of the accused and the chance of bringing him back to society to lead a normal and healthy life would be reduced. One of the purpose of awarding sentence is to ensure the reformation of the criminal and to ensure that the accused does not resort to variant behaviour for which he was convicted. In my view taking into consideration these special facts and circumstances, the sentence awarded to the accused is liable to be reduced from 10 years to 8 years.
25. The conviction of the appellant is confirmed.
The sentence is reduced from 10 years to 8 years. The set off shall be given to the period which the appellant has already undergone and he is also entitled to the legal remission permissible in law for having served more than 6 years of imprisonment. The Appeal is partly allowed.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::- 35 -
26. With the above observations, the appeal is partly allowed and is disposed of accordingly.
27. Since the intervenor was heard by this Court, the intervention application does not survive and is disposed of.
(V.M. KANADE, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:32 :::